Genesis and Matthew

On Friday, February 7, 2014 10:24:44 PM UTC-5, Davoud wrote:
wsnell01:

Peterson, did you write this?:

"The right
to religion has been limited throughout history, to the point where
its existence is doubtful (and ought to be limited today in free
societies, such as making it illegal to teach children about religion,
or take them to church)."

Chris Peterson:

Yes, although in practice I don't know how to make such a thing
happen. I think what will ultimately occur is that teaching children
about religion (as truth) will simply be seen as socially
unacceptable.

You don't see a contradiction between "free society" and "illegal to
teach children about religion, or take them to church?"

Living at a high elevation as you do, I would advise you to not to
further deprive your brain of oxygen by holding your breath until
religion is outlawed in the USA.

I would also suggest that he improve the blood flow to his brain by not sitting for such long periods and by using the restroom more often.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 06:07:18 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Denying children health care is obviously both directly and immediately harmful. The hypothetical harmfulness of an idea is a trickier notion.

Agreed. But it's certainly not impossible to evaluate.

Your rights end where they interfere with the rights of others,

By that you must mean "natural rights," correct?

No.

and children have a right not to be indoctrinated into religion,

From where does that right originate?

From society, as do all rights.

which is one of the most abusive and ruinous things you can do to them.

If you can manage to get away with restricting the teaching of religion, then eventually there might be no religion, at which point you will need to find a new "bogeyman" to eradicate. Free speech perhaps? Well, in fact you would have already lost that anyway.

Straw man.

What I see here is idle chatter that is neither science nor religion,anyway,a society which refuses to support the cause of all the effects within a 24 hour cycle or can't appreciate how the timekeeping systems mesh with the planetary cycles is truly in its own 'end of the world' condition.

The Book of Revelation is not for the unbelievers who won't understand it anyway as a facet of a larger picture,it addresses only the 'consumerist' Christian and their mediocrity -

"I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. For you say, 'I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.' You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked." Revelation

The Book of Revelation should delight Christians but considering that some Christians here can't manage to handle basic visible observations like an orbiting moon without it spinning or the cause of sunrise/sunset or for some unbelievable reason encase the Universe in a celestial sphere structure the Book will always remain as a curse of an unintelligent mind and especially a small heart.

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

What I see here is idle chatter that is neither science nor
religion,anyway,a society which refuses to support the cause of all the
effects within a 24 hour cycle or can't appreciate how the timekeeping
systems mesh with the planetary cycles is truly in its own 'end of the
world' condition.

The Book of Revelation is not for the unbelievers who won't understand it.

==========================================
I don't understand religion or want to and you don't understand a sidereal
day or want to. One of us is off-topic in an astronomy newsgroup.
Take your idle chatter and **** off with it to alt.religion.revelations, we
have no common ground and YOU do not belong here, whore of Babylon.

-- Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway

On Friday, February 7, 2014 2:16:36 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

Not if they couldn't explain how to achieve this without all manner of
undesirable consequences.

In my perfect society, teaching children religion would be illegal. We
don't live in a perfect society.

Yes, since people today who are parents take their religion very seriously, clearly you would need to have an undesirable dictatorship to prevent parents from teaching religion to their children.

Just because I disapprove of much that is done in the name of religion, though, I welcome a society where the government doesn't try to create the philosophical center that all individuals are expected to have to determine their fundamental notions of right and wrong.

Since this is not a solved problem, where universal agreement on questions of morals is as reasonable to expect as universal agreement on matters of physics or mathematics, for people to bring diverse viewpoints to the body politic helps to allow an approach to the truth.

Some religious groups, of course, are cult-like and teach children particularly pernicious notions. You may be right that we have a tolerance for other religious groups that would objectively also be considered not that much different. But liberty is properly the priority.

John Savard

There is an overlap between the Book of Revelation and the second ending of John 21 however ,once Revelation serves its purpose it becomes a facet within the greater Johannine Work as a book of hope and not of terror.

Love of God has a double meaning just as the first four lines of Revelation have for all things are between the individual and the Universal or between man/woman and God.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 10:05:26 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

Yes, since people today who are parents take their religion very seriously, clearly you would need to have an undesirable dictatorship to prevent parents from teaching religion to their children.

Which is precisely why I don't propose making such teaching illegal in
today's world. But in a world where religion is widely recognized as
damaging? That's a different matter. We base our laws (mostly) on
societal norms. Given current trends, religion will not be common in
the future. It will be properly recognized as a delusion, something
that is harmful and should not be taught to kids. A law against its
teaching in that world is very different.

On Sunday, February 9, 2014 12:11:05 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
Given current trends, religion will not be common in
the future.

It's true that religious belief is not as all-pervasive as it once was.

But its prevalence does not seem to be heading downwards very quickly. In the United States, at least, you would be talking about something like the year 50,000 A.D. - or should I say C.E.?

That's rather far away to speculate about in terms of social norms.

John Savard

"oriel36" wrote in message
...

There is an overlap between the Book of Revelation
===============================================
Not astronomy, therefore off-topic, you rude thug. **** off and fart in your
own mosque, not in my temple.

On Sun, 9 Feb 2014 11:21:48 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

It's true that religious belief is not as all-pervasive as it once was.

But its prevalence does not seem to be heading downwards very quickly. In the United States, at least, you would be talking about something like the year 50,000 A.D. - or should I say C.E.?

The shift away from religion is nearly complete in most other
developed countries. And in the U.S., the evidence suggests that the
change is not linear (social change rarely is). I'd say we're talking
about decades, not millennia. Indeed, I think the survival of the U.S.
as a developed nation requires that. It is religion and faith that is
putting the country (and world) at the greatest risk. I sincerely
doubt that the U.S. will survive in anything like its current form
without a rapid decrease in religiosity over the next years.
Fortunately, it seems to be happening.